I think this is preposterous. This site was about answering
programming questions and this is a perfectly legitimate question. My
question did not ask for a recommendation for a particular library
rather it was looking for an existential example in general. However,
the reaction that I see here is an illustration of elitism and it is
extremely counter productive and goes against very basic principles of
free exchange of ideas. The way this site has been reacting to
questions is quite reprehensible and warrants a revocation of usage of
the Creative Commons license as it violates Article 4.

It's not clear, but the user may have been referring specifically to Article 4(a)

You may not offer or impose any terms on the Work that alter or restrict the terms of this License or the recipients' exercise of the rights granted here under.

I'm assuming that the user is completely wrong, but can somebody confirm or deny this, and if it's wrong, perhaps remove it? Legal citations shouldn't be given out lightly, I would think.

All CC licenses have a clause that states that you are required to get your question answered if the question is published under a CC license. The only one that does not have that clause is the CC-BY-NA, i.e. Creative Commons Attribution No-Answers.
–
R. Martinho FernandesJun 30 '14 at 18:28

@NickDugger Not caring about licensing is how Stack Overflow got into the ridiculous state of using an entirely unsuitable license to distribute code. If there were an issue (there doesn't seem to be), we should care.
–
Jeremy Banks♦Jun 30 '14 at 20:26

6

@JeremyBanks: If the point of SO was to distribute code, I'd agree. As it is, though, I'd say that, if you copy-paste non-trivial amounts code verbatim from SO into your software, complying with the CC license is likely to be the least of your problems. (Of course, there are occasional exceptions, and those should certainly be explicitly released under some more appropriate license.)
–
Ilmari KaronenJun 30 '14 at 22:44

1

@JeremyBanks: I agree that it's not an appropriate software license, but I don't see what's to be done about it. Those snippets were contributed to the site under CC-BY-SA, which AFAIK doesn't permit their redistribution under any existing software license. So either they're fair use or they're infringing, but that ship has sailed. You can't get a new license from all their authors (in particular those no longer using the site). It would be nice if future code were contributed to SO under a completely permissive license (equivalent to public domain) though.
–
Steve JessopJul 1 '14 at 13:53

2

Hmm, interesting, my initial thought is that he might be referring to article 4(d) - "if You Reproduce, Distribute or Publicly Perform the Work [...] You must not distort, mutilate, modify or take other derogatory action in relation to the Work which would be prejudicial to the Original Author's honor or reputation."
–
T.C.Jul 2 '14 at 6:59

2

I can't see the original question because it was removed. I would therefore have to agree with his claim of censorship on that basis. Benefit of the doubt must be given to individuals, not collectives. That would be to the original poster, not to stack overflow.
–
user426364Jul 3 '14 at 13:37

1

@user426364: that's fine. But the question isn't about censorship (which SO is entitled to perform for all that we don't personally want to be censored). It's about CC licensing, and the benefit of the doubt on legal interpretations does not automatically go to some random person on the internet who's upset about censorship ;-)
–
Steve JessopJul 3 '14 at 14:24

The license under which users submit their content to SO grants SO permission to redistribute their content. It does not force SO to redistribute their content forever - if SO wants to stop distributing their content (e.g. by closing and deleting a question), that is in no way a violation of the CC license.

Even though it can be frustrating for the user (I think a low-rep user cannot see his own questions when they are deleted?), I agree though, that it's not SO's job to be an everlasting archive for bad questions.
–
GolezTrolJun 30 '14 at 19:31

3

+1 - I was tempted to respond, but this already hits the key point - I'm editing a line or two in above to make it even clearer.
–
Jaydles♦Jun 30 '14 at 20:29

4

The relevant law is copyright. SO has a copy of what the OP wrote in their browser window. If the OP neglected to retain a copy of the original when SO deletes its copy... well tough.
–
RaedwaldJun 30 '14 at 21:12

Some people squeeze out a turd & demand it be treated like the most amazing artwork they have ever created. Which might be the case; that turd might be the best thing they ever create. But the turd is in my toilet. And now I exercise my toilet ownership rights & will flush it.
–
JakeGouldJul 1 '14 at 2:04

Why doesn't SO make up their own license with a clause that says, "if your s*** sucks then we reserve the right not to continue dealing with it!"
–
gonzobrainsJul 3 '14 at 17:47

I think this is an area where the user may have confused things with the GPL, which I believe does have a clause saying that any source code must be made available for 3 years from the date of original release/publication, or something to that effect. That, however, is the responsibility of the person RELEASING the code (ie the USER on SE, not the SITE). Either way, it doesn't appear to have any relevance to any of the CC licenses
–
Jon StoryJan 15 at 10:46

Legalistic blather like this is in the same bucket as all the other comments there that don't have to do with clarifying the question or why it was closed: "non-constructive".

Why are we even talking about this? If the user wants to raise some kind of legal challenge to SO's practice of closing questions, making little remarks on the site itself isn't going to get em very far.

Ignore it, flag if you want, and move on to focusing on something more meaningful.

Awesome. Last sentence of your's. Ignore it, flag if you want, and move on to focusing on something more meaningful. said it all :)
–
ShubhJul 2 '14 at 14:20

62

-1 Does not actually answer the question. At no point did the Asker ask what he should have done. He asked if a concern was legitimate. If you think a question is bad, downvote it, and if you need to explain, leave a comment. And, for goodness sake, Asker, don't encourage people by picking an answer that doesn't follow the rules.
–
trlklyJul 2 '14 at 16:15

@JoshCaswell You didn't do that, though. The question is "Is this guy's claim correct that Stack Exchange is violating the Creative Commons license when it deletes a post?" You didn't challenge the premise of the question nor did you attempt to answer it. Again, at no point did the Asker ask what he should do, which is what you actually answered.
–
trlklyJul 2 '14 at 17:15

More than two-thirds of this answer -- my first two paragraphs -- are precisely about the legal claim, @trlkly. Only the last is a suggestion for RUJordan.
–
Josh CaswellJul 2 '14 at 17:21

Still, neither answers the question "Is this guy's claim correct that Stack Exchange is violating the Creative Commons license when it deletes a post?" Taken separately, the first paragraph answers "Are legal comments constructive comments?" And the second "Do such comments have any legal value?" The second also throws in the part that led to me saying you should have downvoted the question, as the obvious answer to the rhetorical question is that we shouldn't be discussing this, hence it is a bad question. I believe we are at an impasse; nothing will change my vote besides editing the answer.
–
trlklyJul 2 '14 at 18:00

I did downvote the question, @trlkly, and you're more than welcome to express your opinion by downvoting my answer. We will indeed have to agree to disagree, but I'll keep your feedback in mind.
–
Josh CaswellJul 2 '14 at 18:05

Being generous to the person in question, they think that deleting the question restricts or interferes with the license under which people have already received it.

I am not a lawyer either, but it seems unlikely to me that this belief is sustained in law. There are a couple of easy mistakes that would lead to this conclusion:

that SO in some way restricts you from distributing any copies you may have made of the deleted question. I don't think it does, although it looks as if it does because SO's definition of "attribution" is to link to the question. This is not possible if it has been deleted, but I'm pretty sure that the resolution to that quandary is that SO doesn't get the attribution in the form it prefers, not that since it's impossible to attribute to SO's satisfaction you cannot redistribute. SO (as a re-distributer of content under the license) doesn't actually have the right to arbitrarily define what constitutes attribution, so I suspect that whatever definition it makes can only be considered the preferred attribution. Of course since CC licenses aren't widely tested in court, in some sense this person can come and have a go if they think they have a case.

that SO's practical interference with your ability to download the question from them again, is in some way a legal restriction on your right to redistribute. I think it pretty clearly isn't, but I see how someone might misinterpret a right to do something, as a right to be helped to do something. The license gives you the right to redistribute a copy you took, but it doesn't give you the right to get another copy from SO.

Being less generous to the person, they are imagining properties of the license that they would like but which in fact do not exist: specifically a responsibility to maintain these "very basic principles of free exchange of ideas".

Being ungenerous to the person, they're making stuff up because they're angry.

The appropriate response depends what you can assume about the person who wrote it. Treating it as a genuine legal misunderstanding, it would make sense to make a reasoned counter-claim except that it's off-topic for SO comments, issues about licensing belong here on meta. So the person should be directed here, probably combined with deletion. Treating it as spurious invention it would make sense to delete it without remark :-)

I do not like your structure "being-being-being". Why can't you give a straight answer? Do you think in one way now, and in another next minute?
–
VividDJul 1 '14 at 1:41

27

@VividD: I do not know what is in the mind of the person who wrote this comment. I am a rational being, capable of considering hypotheticals. "Being generous" is just an idiom that means "in the hypothetical case that the questioner is somewhat admirable". If you dislike my rhetorical structure then that's unfortunate, but since the question is not, "what is in the mind of the person who wrote this", I don't feel obliged to stick to only one possibility.
–
Steve JessopJul 1 '14 at 1:42

I understood your idiom, but reserve my right to like or not like your answer/comment/opinion/style/substance, and reserve my right to say so. Do you have a problem with that?
–
VividDJul 1 '14 at 1:51

13

@VividD: of course I don't have a problem with it, although naturally I will sometimes respond to such expressions of dislike.
–
Steve JessopJul 1 '14 at 1:53

1

All right then. The real friend is not the one who always talks nicely to you.
–
VividDJul 1 '14 at 1:55

4

But as a straight answer to your second question: since I'm considering one hypothetical and then another, to that extent only I think one way now, and another way the next minute :-) The person who made the comment might be legally confused or might be knowingly making up rubbish in the hope of creating legal confusion.
–
Steve JessopJul 1 '14 at 1:56

@AndrewBarber I am being surprised about you being fascinated
–
gnatJul 1 '14 at 6:01

6

I am fascinated by your surprise, @gnat. It strikes me that while certain people are likely to be surprised, others may or may not themselves be surprised. Additionally, we may see cases where some are fascinated by this, and others not. In all cases, individuals should decide what they believe their best course of action is, and seek qualified, legal advice regarding it before proceeding. However, they should not necessarily trust this advice, because... <GAK>...
–
Andrew BarberJul 1 '14 at 17:48

13

@VividD Being slightly humorous about the matter, I must say: Being that your negativity towards this user was obvious at first, I am slightly perturbed that you seem to be claiming to be one of this user's "real friends", by not always talking nicely to him. Or perhaps, I'm just Being overly complicated.
–
user2700923Jul 2 '14 at 3:40

I am sorry I was trying to avoid a flame war but these posts are just picking a nerve about a pet peeve of mine. This happens way too often on the internet and even in general that "free speech" is used as a firewall to defend absolutely anything. People are entitled to their opinions and the right to express them, but these opinions have to be expressed in REASON and not as judgemental sound-bytes. "Do you think in one way now, and in another next minute?" is a judgemental sound-byte and @VividD that is unacceptable in any circumstances.
–
Dev KanchenJul 2 '14 at 4:59

@gnat I am being perplexed about you being surprised about Andrew Barber being fascinated :D But seriously, about the link providing attribution. If you delete the question, you're no longer providing it, so attribution is no longer required either. That seems pretty straightforward. Resupplying a contributed work once does not obligate you to resupply it indefinitely. I think that's the crux of the whole issue.
–
jinglesthulaJul 2 '14 at 15:19

@jinglesthula: "attribution is no longer required either" -- I don't think that's correct. The license requires attribution, that's the "BY" part. Since the content includes author usernames, and furthermore since SO itself claims authorship as a compiler of separate works, the best form of attribution is to link to the question, which in turn links to the individual author pages where they're identified if they wish to be. But if SO takes down the question you're still obliged by the license to attribute to the authors and to SO. You'll just have to find another way to do it.
–
Steve JessopJul 2 '14 at 15:40

... I've just realised there's a further physical impediment, actually. The "author" of a question or answer (who licensed SO to distribute it) might be more than one person, and only the edit history reveals all substantial edits. So once the question is deleted it might no longer be possible to credit all authors (which linking to the question does since the history is available that way). Tricky one -- if you didn't grab the history when you grabbed the content then you have no way of knowing whether you've identified all the authors of something that has been edited.
–
Steve JessopJul 2 '14 at 15:41

Unfortunately, we don't have a good designated place for deleted "too fun" questions to live, but all Stack Exchange content is licensed under Creative Commons in perpetuity. Which means, with proper attribution, we can give it a permanent home on our own blogs.

10K rep users can continue to see deleted questions, and are still bound by Creative Commons restrictions. I don't see any problems here.

I agree with your free speech point, but I think that the original poster's argument was over the (apparent, but not really) violation of the Creative Commons license, specifically.
–
CupcakeJun 30 '14 at 21:56

1

@Cupcake I think they were trying to use the Creative Commons license as a means to circumvent the private ownership of Stack Exchange (two words ;) ).
–
Jane SJun 30 '14 at 21:58

I think your two statemens do not hold: 1) Whether SO is privately owned or not is as relevent as if it rains or not; 2) Each poster (including you) "pay" to SO with their time and knowledge - SO lives from the content through ads etc. Posters do not depend on SO, but SO depends on posters.
–
VividDJul 1 '14 at 1:21

1

@VividD Nobody holds a gun to the heads of anyone to post on SO. Stack Exchange is a commercial entity who supply a resource at their expense. Sure I put my time in, and that enrichens (I hope) the "product" that is StackOverflow. They are ultimately responsible for what best achieves their aims. My aims are to find resolution my technical problems and to help others to do the same. SE's is to ultimately make money. The two aims just happen to be mutually beneficial. That still doesn't mean I have any say over what is commercially viable in the opinion of the owners of this site :)
–
Jane SJul 1 '14 at 1:40

2

@intracept please accept my greatest apologies for being nit-picky, but "Stack Overflow" is officially two words (see Proper Use of the Stack Exchange Name), not one word like "StackOverflow". They should really do something about those logos, they result in a ton of extra edits needed by us OCD users to correct that sort of thing :P
–
CupcakeJul 1 '14 at 2:29

@AeroX I was actually thinking of this when I posted. xkcd is great :)
–
Jane SJul 2 '14 at 21:29

Today I learned that free speech died because no one wanted to pay for it. I guess it just wasn't valuable, after all.
–
user426364Jul 3 '14 at 13:29

This answer is entirely invalid. The fact that they are privately owned is irrelevant. The claim here is that SO agreed to the terms of a licence, and that that licence requires them to continue to host the content covered by the licence. Who owns SO, or any discussion of "Free Speech" is entirely irrelevant to the claim being made. The claim is invalid because the terms of the licence in question don't actually require what this user is claiming they do. If it did, then SO would have to abide by them, private or not. Of course, SO wouldn't agree to such terms...
–
ServyJul 3 '14 at 15:30

... if You Reproduce, Distribute or Publicly Perform the Work ... , You must not
distort, mutilate, modify or take other derogatory action in relation
to the Work which would be prejudicial to the Original Author's honor
or reputation.

Closing the question was Obviously a derogatory action prejudicial to the Author's reputation...

It is neither. Closed questions do not affect one's reputation, either on the site or in the real world.
–
Cody GrayJul 3 '14 at 13:12

@CodyGray, actually, if they've been upvoted and then deleted, it does. To be honest, I don't think SO reputation and "real" reputation really match anyway. Maybe it shouldn't be called reputation.
–
BrunoJul 3 '14 at 15:02

I thought of this too. I think this could actually be a substantive objection. But there's a strong case to be made that SO is actually enhancing the author's honor and reputation by preventing the rest of the world from seeing their bad question or answer!
–
senderleJul 3 '14 at 15:14

@senderle That would apply to deletion, not closing...
–
ServyJul 3 '14 at 15:31

@Servy, I disagree -- closing also reduces the number of people who see the post. Are you as likely to click on a link that says [closed]? I'm not. And if fewer people edit the question, it's less likely to appear on lists of questions with recent activity. Furthermore, closing often provides the author an opportunity to improve the question. Overall I think closing does a lot to help the reputation of an author.
–
senderleJul 3 '14 at 16:25

I don't think that the CC license is intended to say that you can't judge, rate or criticise the work. If closing and deletion are prejudicial, then quite possibly there's a claim that so is downvoting (and publishing downvotes), or even stating disagreement with it (or publishing disagreement). That would make the license unsuitable for SO or for any kind of forum, so would be a big oversight on the part of Jeff and Joel's lawyers! I don't know, maybe "prejudicial to reputation" is a jargon term with a specific legal meaning that draws a line somewhere well-known to lawyers.
–
Steve JessopJul 3 '14 at 20:33